Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The redoubtable Alan Sepinwall weighs in . . . and says the first two episodes are "terrific". Sepinwall's one of the major TV critics who has not read the books (very consciously doing so, and despite a number of critics urging him to it).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

EW's Dalton Ross liked the show (not loved it, liked it) based on the 2 episodes he saw (never read the book), and in particular cited the cliffhanger ("The things I do for love") as something that would make you just have to see the next episode. Jennifer Armstrong, EW reporter who was in Belfast, seemed to like it (in particular citing the hot sexy people having sex as very appealing ;). James Hibberd, their main TV critic, likes it a lot (read the books last summer), is concerned that there's so much story to start with that it will lose some viewers over the course of the first couple of weeks, but he expects a big opening.

Podcast here with their views. Hibberd notes that he believes (or was told) that the first episode covers so much ground purely because they wanted the cliffhanger. Ross does not believe this will be a break-out hit because it's too genre-specific, but he does think that it could have an intense following that will increase HBO's subscription base, and that's what they really care about.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The HitFix written review is up and it's a bit worse than what they said in the podcast, with a great final sentence "Really, anything that "Camelot" does, HBO's "King of Thrones" :worried: does many times better. Just hold off for two weeks and watch that instead"

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The HitFix written review is up and it's a bit worse than what they said in the podcast, with a great final sentence "Really, anything that "Camelot" does, HBO's "King of Thrones" :worried: does many times better. Just hold off for two weeks and watch that instead"

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Wow, I was not impressed with the Borgias first episode. I thought I'd at least enjoy it for the era, because I'm way into Renaissance and papal history, but it was pretty dull. It was like a fancy dress soap opera. And Jeremy Irons is very miscast.

I agree with people finding it boring (it is absolutely personal, I myself for example loved watching both "Boardwalk Empire" and "The Sopranos", yet still found them boring) but I don't think it was slow: (SPOILERS) Rodrigo's Pope by the 20th minute and there is already a dead body in his wake by the 50th.

I gave The Borgias pilot about 16 minutes last night but it just didn't grab me. I know, 16 minutes, not a lot of time right? I am pretty sure I am not the target audience for what it's worth.

I might give it another shot later, but since I don't have Showtime, I'll probably just pass.

I think that 16 minutes is a perfectly acceptable time to judge whether you like it or not. And mind you, the pilot at least hardly improves after the first 16 minutes (SPOILERS), during which Rodrigo bribes his way to the papacy through some very interesting methods.

And Jeremy Irons is very miscast.

Jeremy Irons doesn't resemble what Rodrigo Borgia looked like in real life, though he inhabits the role with remarkable gusto and authority, in my opinion, giving him some depth and coolness, yet still rooting him in the realities of his office. And he is the only aspect of the production to have received universal acclaim for his interpretation of the part. I wonder what John Doman will do in the role. I have only seen him on "Damages", but he was cursed with a thankless and one-dimensional villain role in the wreckage that was Season 2. I don't think though he can do better than Irons, in my mind he is associated with a more straight-shooting type of guy.